Talk:Hussar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Polish military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500) Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792–1815)

Until 18th century they were considered the elite of Polish armed forces. Because of the fame and prestige that surrounded the hussars, many of them were accepted into nobility."

This is some missunderstanding. Hussars were not common people who were granted nobility because of their good military services, instead THEY WERE the nobility. Only noble class in poland had the right (and could effort) to become a hussar or pancerni. So if you wanted to be hussar or pancerni, you had to be member of the noble class(szlachta) So there is a mistake in the description: Hussars werent granted nobility, because their already were noble. no common citizen who didn't belong to the szlachta could get hussar or pancerni (perhaps there were FEW exceptions) Could u correct that, my english being not god.

---

I wrote the original very rough draft for this entry, and I've thought of something that should have been included but wasn't. There are still "hussar" units in modern armies, or at least in the British army. They are typically light armor or mechanized infantry reconaissance units. I believe British hussar units took part in the Iraq invasion of 2003. Readers may come across the word "hussar" in this context, so including a paragraph or so on modern hussar units might be a good idea.

-James

---

The entry is quite good in its timeframe, but hussars were used earlier by the Polish-

10.IV.2004 Lithuanian Commonwealth - as early as XVI century. If there are no objections, I will soon update your entry with information from following sources: http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/comp/comp06.htm http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm http://www.jurekputter.freeserve.co.uk/polish/hussars.htm http://wiem.onet.pl/wiem/005b10.html

Contents 1 Polish Husaria 2 Polish Hussar - effects of wings 3 Other powers, like Russia, used only Hungarian officers in their Hussar regiments. 4 ENGLISH ARTICLE ABOUT HUSSAR IT HORRID LIE 5 Just a comment 6 Huzar, Husarz 7 Extensive deletions 8 Hungarian style Hussars and Polish Husaria again 9 Polish Hussars

[edit] Polish Husaria

I think it's a mistake to put the Polish Husaria (a.k.a. "Winged Hussars") into Hussars topics as they have hardly anything common (they are cavalery of different types). I think that such an excellent military unit deserves it's own topic.

Yup, first of all the Polish "Winged Hussars" were kind of a heavy cavalry and not light cavalry as used elsewhere. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:00, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it's a "mistake". Both formations are described in English with the same word. Miki

Actaully, I found it somehow missleading, that both definitions of hussars ("Winged Hussars" and "Light Hussars") are combined into one topic. Both formations have different origin, style of fight, and uniforms. Almost all the images show "winged hussars" and only photography of Crown Prince Wilhelm of Germany shows a man in a uniform and cap, which is completely different from the uniform of "winged hussar". The light hussars have Hungarian origins, whereas winged hussars were typically Polish formations. Moreover, these two formations were exisiting in different periods of time. In my opinion, taking into account all these differences, it is reasonable to split the topic into two distinct definitions. The fact that both formations are called the same in english is not a good excuse for leaving the topic in its current form. I would suggest spliting current definition into two definiotions: hussar (light) and hussar (winged).emoui

Oh - in that case I think you're right (apart from adding yet another definition for "modern" hussar units). I would like to suggest one addition to the modification proposed: namely that "Hussar" would lead to a disambiguation pag. Any other solution would cause a large, unfruitful discussion on what is the "right" definition of the word. I confess I'm pretty new to the practice of the Wikipedian modus operandi, so I'd like to ask what should we do next. Does such a decission warant a vote procedure to be initiated?Miki

Polish hussaria was a light cavalry in XV-XVII

I believe one of the finest cavalery units in history (Polish husaria) deserves a separate article, otherwise it's very confusing and make people mistake hussars and husaria. What we have now is a strange article 'winged lancers' with very poor info and not even mentioning the name 'husaria' (strangely enough the Polish article about husaria links to English article about hussars).

[edit] Polish Hussar - effects of wings

The current version of the article states that:

"However, experiments carried out since the 1970s do not support any of the theories."

However, no reference is provided. Question - does someone has access to the source texts and is willing to provide more information on those experiments? The issue at hand, in my opinion, is whether they were reliably conducted. Not only there existed many possible wing configurations to be tested, but also some statements about the wings required a simulation of a sizeable hussar formation in order to be verified or refuted.Miki

At one of PP Wieczorkiewicz's lectures he mentioned that simply library query shows that the wings were in fact invented in 18th century, when the hussars were already obsolete and used them solely during state funerals and such. The legend was born much later... Halibutt 12:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be a very, errr, bold statement, basically amounting to a conspiracy theory - there exists a mountain of evidence that wings, in some form or another, were used before the 18th century. For example, this page contains an image of a painting clearly depicting wings. Said painting was commissioned by Sobieski, who certainly lived in the 17th century. Perhaps Wieczorkiewicz was discussing only the stereotypical variant of the wings (twin, large, mounted on the backplate)? Miki

"As a young boy", my Father told me, that he "held a single feather out of a moving automobile window, and marveled at how it vibrated and 'buzzed', imagine how a whole bunch of them in rows would sound...". I can say, without a doubt, *my* wings >DO< in fact, make a buzzing sound in a high breeze. Witness's have both, seen and heard this, as well as horses standing nearby, immediately showed signs of distress and concern at the sound coming from the wings. The closest idea I can draw from, is a set of Venetian Blinds with a breeze blowing thru them, and they vibrate up & down quickly, as did my feathers, thereby creating that 'buzzing' sound. Rik Fox/http://photos.yahoo.com/wngdhussr

To end this disscusion: IMHO should be "husaria" for the formation, and "husar" (with single "s") for a member of "husaria" unit to avoid mistakes like in this article (about hussars sent to America). Now about the wing. At least 4 of some 15 17th cent. husar's armours in the Polish Armed Forces Museum in Warsaw have mountings fixed for wings. Working on the subject I found that some (not every) husars wore wings. I presume that only "comrades" (knights) were able to wore them instead of squires, who did not have right to use them. The basic husaria unit was known as a "poczet" (body) of 3 men - comrade and 2 squires, which fought tha same way, with the same types of weapon, but without such reach decorations (in gold and precious stones) as comrade. Squires were nobles of lower rank or not nobles at all. Average "poczet" had also 2-3 henchmen, who served with spare weapons and horses, and stayed off the battlefield, but pretty close to see if they are needed. So, sorry Halibutt, the legend was born quite early, and wings of husaria buzzed throughout of XVII-cent. battlefields for sure. And please - do not kill the legends, they are so nice! Belissarius 05:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other powers, like Russia, used only Hungarian officers in their Hussar regiments.

This is simply untrue, at least for XVIII - XIX centuries. For instance, a Napoleonic War hero and poet, Denis Davidoff (Davidov) was a hussar officer and a Russian nobleman, with no Hungarian blood whatsoever. So was another famous hussar officer, the great Russian poet Lermontov. AFAIK, the first Hussars in Russian service were not the Hungarians, but the Serbs.

I can say, without a doubt, *my* wings >DO< in fact, make a buzzing sound in a high breeze. Witness's have both, seen and heard this, as well as horses standing nearby, immediately showed signs of distress and concern at the sound coming from the wings. The closest idea I can draw from, is a set of Venetian Blinds with a breeze blowing thru them, and they vibrate up & down quickly, as did my feathers, thereby creating that 'buzzing' sound. Rik Fox/http://photos.yahoo.com/wngdhussr

[edit] ENGLISH ARTICLE ABOUT HUSSAR IT HORRID LIE

                      !!!CAUTION !!!

THIS DEFINITION(INFORMATION) ABOUT HUSSAR IN ENGLISH ARTICLE IT 99% DISGUSTING LIE. HUSSAR WAS INVINCIBLE POLISH MILITARY FORMATION. I ADVICE YOU SUPPLEMENT EDUCATION ABOUT HUSSAR: HERE: http://www.husaria.jest.pl/ AND http://radoslaw_sikora.webpark.pl/WitrynaHtml/html/glowna.html

 AND  POLISH  ARTICLE ABOUT HUSSAR IN WIKIPEDIA.

GREETINGS

-

Probably a stupid question considering your writing technique, but where's the lie exactly? -- Necrothesp 01:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

IN MAIN ARTICLE ABOUT HUSSAR IN ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA ARE SOME NONSENS AND NEGLIGIBLE INFORMATIONS BUT DOES NOT HAVE FACTS ABOUT IT THAT HUSSAR THERE WAS POLISH MILITARY FORMATION BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL THERE WAS IT AND THERE IS IT AND THERE WILL BE ALWAYS.

- Errr... whatever. //Halibutt 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a comment

I tend to disagree with the comment that relates hussars to Serbia, firstly serbians speak as they pronounce, phoneticly or however that is called so "gussar" would not really exist in their language with two ss. Secondly gusar, which is probably the word the article writer means, is used throughout Sebia and Croatia and does not mean highwayman but a pirate. So if anyone wants to check out the facts on this artice good luck to you. Keep up with the good work. Greetings, I appologise for my bad speling, english is not my first language. Hussar comes from the Hungaryan word HUSZ meaning twenty. Between 14-th and 17-th century nobility, countys and towns in Hungaryan and Croatian kingdom were required to assemble certain number of light horseman on a certain number of peasant households thus creating "militia portalis" or portal militia the true basis of Hussars, in 16-th century that number stabilized at twenty. Word "gussar" does not exist. Croatian and Serbian word "gusar" means pirate and has apsolutly nothing with eany kind of land military force. Further more Serbian nobility after the fall of Serbia to Turks in the 14-th century was mostly intergrated into Turkish military and there was no major wave of reffuges to Croatia and Hungary untill the second half of 16-th century when hussars were allready in use for a long time. Serbian and Croatian soldiers on the Croatian military border were mostly infantry while hussars were mostlly cept by the nobility in the so called "civilian Croatia" which was not settled by Serbs (nobelman or otherwise).In short Serbs had apsolutely nothing with hussar fomations at all. First part of this article is completly inccorect and should be erased.

The word has its origin in Latin cursarius (eng. corsair, serb. gusar), not the word "húsz". After the fall of Serbia Serbian despots relocated to Hungary and with their men had an important role in the defence of the southern frontier (as hussars and as crew of the Danube flotilla). 84.2.210.3 11:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huzar, Husarz

There are 2 types of formations:

1. pl:Husaria in use in XIV-XVIII century - winged hussars
2. pl:Huzarzy, mg:Huszár in use in XV-XIX century, most popular in napoleonic period.

Both are mixed in this article and it is incorrect, because they have nothing in common (only horses).--Hiuppo 08:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extensive deletions

Large sections of text have been deleted from this article over the past twenty four hours without explanation or obvious reason. Most of the deleted material appears to have been factual information covering West European hussars in the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries, and modern regiments in countries such as Denmark, Netherlands, Peru, France and Sweden who have retained that title for historic reasons. Could the editor please justify these changes or, if there has simply been a mistake, revert to the previous text.

[edit] Hungarian style Hussars and Polish Husaria again

The problem is the notation and the difference between Hungarian style Hussars of XIX century and Polish Husaria od XVI-XVII centuries. The difference is simple - the Hussars were light cavalry of the XIX cent. wearing high shacos (round conical, top flattened hat without a visor) and a dolman, armed with sabres and pistols, no pikes. The husarians of XVI-XVII ct. in Poland were some sort of light-heave cavalry which used light horses of Polish-Oriental origin, and the armour of mixed light and heavy cavalry. Husarians used heavy helmets and breastplates, but it weighted less than 20 kg. They also used pikes (callled "kopia") long at least 4,5 meters (some of them were 5,5 meters). Other Husarians armour consisted of sabre, pair of pistols (sometimes reflective bow), and a long sword known as a "koncerz", used as a pike (lenght 1.6 m). Husarians method of fight was completely different of tactics of Western cavqalry of the XVII cent. They were atacking in the fierce galloping mode, going to smash - in one blow - enemy infanrty or cavalry unit. Belissarius 05:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is incorrect. HUSSAR AND HUZAR are two very diffrent typs of polish cavalary. Husaria was a famous ( it was invincible for 123 years, and it fought in many wars, with much more numerous enemies ) winged POLISH cavalary. Other countries didn't have any husarian units ( ok, ok Russia have hussaria but it was fataly trained and there are no informations about batles of russian husaria . Huzaria was a Hungarian cavalary ( it was not similar to Husaria.

--- Allow me to repeat myself. There exist no words in English allowing to differentiate between Hungarian-style light cavalry and Commonwealth heavy cavalry versions of the hussar formation. Especially, to the best of my knowledge (and according to my Oxford-PWN dictionaries), there are no such English words as "husar", "huzar", or "husaria" (not to mention that "husar" is not even a word in Polish). I'm not sure, but I think Wikipedia has some rules against introducing neologisms. Currently, the article still needs some sort of restructuring. As it is the case that it essentially describes two very distinct formations, I would again propose to split the page into two others, and create a disambiguation page in place of the main entry. What do others think about this? Miki 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am convinced that both formation have the same etymology, but each of them belongs to another times and another style of fighting. Thats why I am talking about diversification and use of "neologism" simply because English dictionary had no knowledge about forces like "husaria" before. We have right to create such neologisms when we encounter such difficulties. Belissarius 06:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was principally directing my comment at your successor. Sorry for the confusion, and curse my ignorance of Wiki formating ;). I have no problem with using foreign-language terms in double quotes, just like you do, and just like it should be done. Miki 18:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the proposal to restructure the present text into two separate articles. These are two entirely different types of cavalry, each with its own proud traditions and history. The present merged article is creating unnecessary confusion and friction.Buistr 21:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Hussars

For starters, may I suggest making this a proper subarticle describing the famous Polish hussars of the PLCommonwealth?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)